Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 2:41 PM Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote:
>> Ah, ok, I agree that would have been good to do. Of course, hindsight
>> being 20/20 and all that. Something to keep in mind for the future
>> though.
> I think it was inappropriate to commit this at all. You can't just
> say "some other committer objects, but I think I'm right so I'll just
> ignore them and commit anyway." If we all do that it'll be chaos.
FWIW, that was my concern about this.
> I don't know exactly how many concurring vote it takes to override
> somebody else's -1, but it's got to be more than zero.
If even one other person had +1'd Andrew's proposal, I'd have yielded
to the consensus --- this was certainly an issue on which it's not
totally clear what to do. But unless I missed some traffic, the vote
was exactly 1 to 1. There is no way that that represents consensus to
commit.
Also on the topic of process: 48 hours before a wrap deadline is
*particularly* not the time to play fast and loose with this sort of
thing. It'd have been better to wait till after this week's releases,
so there'd at least be time to reconsider if the patch turned out to
have unexpected side-effects.
regards, tom lane
